MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell defamed Dominion employee, jury says
June 17 (UPI) -- MyPillow CEO and conservative political activist Mike Lindell defamed a former employee of Denver's Dominion Voting Systems, a federal jury found on Monday.
After a two-week trial, a federal jury is requiring Lindell to pay Eric Coomer roughly $2.3 million, according to David Beller, one of Coomer's lawyers.
Coomer's attorney Charles Caine said, "We're thrilled with the verdict."
During Coomer's time as a former director of product strategy and security at Dominion, a manufacturer of voting machines, Lindell claimed -- without any evidence -- that Coomer had flipped votes to prevent President Trump from winning re-election.
The jury found three statements that met requirements of defamation. Two were made by Lindell and one was made by someone else at a FrankSpeech event. That broadcast platform is now known as LindellTV.
"I mean, you are disgusting, and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America," said Lindell, according to court filings.
"Eric Coomer, you are a criminal. Eric Coomer, your lawyers better look out. I'm not putting up with this," the far-right Trump supporter said in an interview. "You've been a part of the biggest crime this world has ever seen."
Coomer then sued Lindell, saying the harassment from him and others put an end to his 15-year career in the industry. And Coomer said Lindell's harassment led to "death threats," as well.
"Mike Lindell not only hurt Eric Coomer with his baseless lies -- he hurt the American people and the democratic process," Beller said in a statement. "Dr. Coomer is now one step closer to putting his life back together."
After the verdict, Lindell stressed that his company is not liable for defamation. He said in the jury's finding that he will continue to claim that voting machine companies steal elections.
"It's a huge breakthrough about free speech, our First Amendment rights," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Couple making $180K say they're one mistake away 'from losing everything' — Ramit Sethi says their problem is 'not math'
Dominique, 33, and Chris, 34, make a combined income of $180,000 per year — and while that may sound like a lot of money, they're still living paycheck to paycheck. They're one 'f–ck-up away from losing everything,' Dominique told Ramit Sethi on his I Will Teach You To Be Rich podcast. At that moment, Chris has just $64.18 in his checking account. While on paper they have 'an amazing income,' their short-term money mindset 'has them living very, very tightly with their finances,' said Sethi. For example, they bought a second house 'based purely on vibes.' Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now The dilemma Dominique and Chris have been together six years; they're engaged and raising a toddler. They bought a second house, which they're currently renting, but that's costing them $1,000 to $2,000 a month — though if they offload the house in this market, they could end up losing about $40,000. Their childcare costs are also set to quadruple. But they spend without thinking and don't crunch the numbers, even on major purchases, leaving them financially unstable. There's also a disconnect around how much they each contribute. Dominique manages parenting, full-time work, and the household finances, which makes her increasingly resentful. But Chris tunes out their financial issues, becoming more and more disengaged. Chris wasn't working for a while 'and it just felt like everything was piling on and piling on, especially because we don't communicate about finances together or… work things out as a team,' Dominique told Sethi. 'I kind of shut down in those situations because I don't like confrontation,' Chris admitted to Sethi. Chris is now working, and when Sethi breaks down the numbers, he finds that Chris makes a gross monthly income of $9,240 versus Dominique's $5,709. 'Their finances are driven mostly by emotion, not by math. And if they don't make a change, they are at risk of losing everything they've built,' said Sethi. This money mindset is the culprit 'behind everything from their daily spending to their hesitation around investing,' he added. 'There's not a lot of conscious spending, conscious saving, conscious investing. It's pretty reactionary.' Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. The cost of living reactively A short-term money mindset usually involves living paycheck to paycheck, making impulse purchases, and overusing credit cards, as well as avoiding savings and investments. But if you make impulse decisions on major purchases like a house, car, or vacation — especially if those decisions are based on fear — 'you will pay the price,' said Sethi. That price can be financial, like higher costs over time (such as putting a major purchase on your credit card that you can't afford to pay off right away, leading to accruing interest charges). Or, it could mean you're more vulnerable to emergencies (if you don't have savings or an emergency fund). But it can also lead to stress, anxiety, and even major health problems. An Intuit consumer survey found that 61% of those aged 18 to 35 experience financial anxiety, with the main culprits being rising living expenses (76%), job uncertainty (48%) and increasing housing costs (46%). That financial anxiety ties into their overall mental and physical health, with 58% saying that managing their finances improves their quality of life. Yet, 49% still live paycheck to paycheck and 32% struggle to plan for unexpected expenses. Ongoing stress and financial fears can lead to negative mental health side effects, such as anxiety, depression, relationship problems, and even problem substance abuse, according to the Newport Institute. A recent Health is Wealth report found that 66% of U.S. adults experienced trouble sleeping (40%) and headaches (37%) due to financial stress, while 67% say inflation has negatively impacted their physical or mental health. But it doesn't have to be that way. Shifting to a long-term mindset Sethi says there's a difference between being problem-oriented and solution-oriented. 'You can be someone who talks about problems or you can be someone who finds solutions,' he said during his podcast. As for Dominique and Chris? They've 'spent years in problem mode, spinning their wheels, going in circles, arguing, avoiding, reacting.' If they really want to change, Sethi said they need to shift 'from being problem-oriented to solution-oriented.' Sethi's advice to Dominique and Chris is to start by learning the basic language of personal finance. That might mean reading books, watching videos, or taking workshops; it could also mean financial counseling. They also need to start communicating about money — and their future goals. That could mean setting aside a regular meeting time to discuss money matters and start setting goals for their future together. From there, they can create a budget, open a joint savings account, set money aside for emergencies and automate their bill payments, savings and investments. 'It needs to happen every month consistently, automatically,' said Sethi. They'll also need to make a decision on their second house, which they'll take a loss on if they sell (which may or may not be the right decision after they crunch the numbers). But a major factor that could influence whether they're successful or not is whether they can shift away from their short-term money mindset toward a solution-oriented, long-term mindset. 'That's a profound shift,' Sethi said. 'That means going from 'can you believe this?' to 'how would I fix this?'' What to read next Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Car companies are paying tariffs so you don't have to
'We haven't raised prices due to tariffs, and that's still our mantra,' Randy Parker, chief executive of Hyundai and Genesis Motor North America, said in an interview this month. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up That is good news for Trump and Republicans in Congress because it insulates them from the political consequences of higher sticker prices, which would also contribute to inflation. Advertisement Carmakers 'will try to hold prices and focus on cost reduction for as long as they can,' said Lenny LaRocca, a partner at KPMG who leads the consulting firm's work with the auto industry. But, LaRocca said, 'clearly it's not sustainable.' He predicted that automakers would start raising prices significantly early next year. No car company is immune. Even those that make most of their vehicles in the United States use imported parts that can amount to more than half the value of some cars. In recent weeks General Motors, Toyota, Ford Motor, Stellantis, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have all blamed tariffs for declines in profit. Advertisement Ford, which makes most of its cars in the United States, expects retail prices for its vehicles to rise just 1% this year, Sherry House, the chief financial officer, said last month during a conference call with reporters. Mercedes-Benz vehicles at the Port of Baltimore, where new vehicle imports are processed before distribution to dealerships. Stephanie Scarbrough/Associated Press But that's not because the tariffs aren't having an effect. Import duties subtracted $800 million from Ford's profit in the second quarter, leading to a slight loss for the period. For the whole year, Ford estimated that tariffs would cost the company $2 billion. General Motors, the largest U.S. carmaker, said last month that tariffs would cost the company as much as $5 billion for the full year, although it hoped to offset about a third of that amount by cutting costs and moving some manufacturing to the United States. Still, the company expects retail prices to rise 1% or less this year, Paul Jacobson, chief financial officer of GM, told investors last month. Toyota, which makes many cars in the United States but also imports them from Japan, Mexico and Canada, said Thursday that tariffs would cost it $9.5 billion. A day earlier, Honda pegged its tariff cost at $3 billion. Tariffs and sinking profits could make it harder for carmakers to do what Trump wants them to do -- relocate assembly lines to the United States from other countries. Companies will have less money to invest in new factories and equipment. The Trump administration maintains that deregulation, tax deductions for equipment purchasing and other measures will be positive for the industry. Advertisement 'Two things can be accomplished at once: We can lower costs for everyday Americans while restoring American auto dominance,' Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said in an email. 'The administration is working closely with the auto industry to deliver on both fronts.' Car prices as measured by U.S. officials declined slightly in June, Desai pointed out, 'despite months of autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum tariffs being in place.' Workers gave final inspections to vehicles at a General Motors plant in Spring Hill, Tenn. BRETT CARLSEN/NYT Others see signs that prices are beginning to creep higher. Cox Automotive estimates that tariffs will add at least $5,000 to the cost of imported cars on an annual basis. Even for cars manufactured in the United States, tariffs on components add about $1,000, not including the 50% duties that Trump has imposed on imported steel and aluminum. By the end of the year, prices could be 8% higher, Cox says, pushing the average selling price of a new car above $50,000. Higher prices would fall hardest on less affluent consumers. Many of the least expensive cars are imported, like the Chevrolet Trax made in South Korea or the Nissan Versa made in Mexico. Some car buyers will be able to afford only used models. And higher demand for pre-owned vehicles will push up their prices, too. Adding to the pain, buyers of used cars often pay much higher interest on loans, which can exceed 20% for people with less-than-stellar credit records. The cost of repairs and parts will also rise. So far the price increases have been modest, said Michael Holmes, co-chief executive of Virginia Tire and Auto. The chain of auto repair and maintenance shops adds a tariff surcharge to prices to reflect the additional cost. That can range from 50 cents or so for an air filter to around $5 for a tire. Advertisement But the surcharges could rise depending on where tariffs on parts from Mexico and Canada end up, he said. His biggest problem, Holmes said, is staying abreast of shifting trade policy. 'You get exhausted trying to figure out where all these tariffs are,' he said. Trump policies have some financial benefits for carmakers. The Republican domestic policy bill passed last month eliminated penalties for violating clean air standards. That angered environmental groups but allows carmakers to build more big SUVs and pickups, which tend to have the highest profit margins. The end of those penalties has also freed established carmakers from having to buy clean air credits if they fall short of emissions targets. That will save GM and others hundreds of millions of dollars, but comes at the expense of companies that have lots of credits to sell, like Tesla and Rivian, because they make only electric vehicles that emit nothing from tailpipes. Car executives are hopeful that the Trump administration will take further steps to ease the impact of tariffs. 'We're having very constructive conversations with them to ensure a more level playing field,' House, the Ford chief financial officer, told reporters this month. But Trump continues to threaten substantial tariffs on Mexico and Canada and has yet to reach a permanent trade deal with either. Both countries are critical suppliers of vehicles and parts and are important destinations for parts and vehicles made in the United States. The policy bill also contained a measure designed to stimulate demand for cars. The provision lets taxpayers deduct from their taxes the interest they pay on loans used to buy cars assembled in the United States. But the value of the deduction will be relatively small, in the hundreds of dollars for most people. Advertisement 'We don't think it's really going to drive demand,' said Erin Keating, executive analyst at Cox Automotive. This article originally appeared in
UPI
4 minutes ago
- UPI
UCLA gets $1B settlement proposal from DOJ to restore federal funding
1 of 4 | Earlier this week, UCLA announced it had lost millions in federal research funding after the Trump administration accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students during on-campus pro-Palestinian protests. File Photo by Phil McCarten/UPI | License Photo Aug. 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. Justice Department is asking for $1 billion from the University of California, Los Angeles in exchange for re-starting federal funding to the public land-grant research institution, school officials confirmed. "The University of California just received a document from the Department of Justice and is reviewing it," University of California President James Milliken said in a statement this week. "As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country's greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians." Earlier this week, UCLA announced it had lost millions in federal research funding after the Justice Department accused it of failing to protect Jewish students during on-campus pro-Palestinian protests. The school at the time did not specify a dollar amount, but that figure is now believed to be around $500 million. "The UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President are providing counsel as we actively evaluate our best course of action. I will continue to be in constant communication with you on key decisions and update you on any developments," UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said following Milliken's statement. The deal offered by President Donald Trump's administration to the 106-year-old academic institution would involve the school making a $1 billion payment. It would also pay an additional $172 million which would go to a larger fund to compensate victims of civil rights violations, the New York Times reported, citing a draft of the proposal. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said the state would push back against the proposed settlement. "We'll sue," Newsom told reporters at a news conference Friday when asked about the news. Newsom had been discussing California's involvement with Texas lawmakers who are trying to block a Republican redistricting plan in the Lone Star state. "[Trump] is trying to silence academic freedom," Newsom said, "attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America." Columbia University last month agreed to pay $221 million in fines to settle similar accusations against the private New York City university. At the time, Trump said he also expected to reach a settlement with Harvard University.
